Ministry Review of the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment
Review prepared pursuant to subsection 7(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O 1990 Province of Ontario by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Environmental Approvals Branch
NEED MORE INFORMATION?
Public Record Locations
The public record including the Review and Notice of Completion for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Environmental Approvals Branch 2 St.Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, Ontario Voice: (416) 314-8001/1-800-461-6290 Fax: (416) 314-8452
The Review and Notice of Completion are also available at the following locations:
Ministry of the Environment and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Climate Change 5 Shoreham Drive (Lobby) Central Region Office Toronto, Ontario M3N 1S4 5775 Yonge Street, 8th Floor Phone: (416) 661-6600 North York, Ontario M2M 4J1 http://www.trca.on.ca/DMNPEA (416) 326-67000
Waterfront Toronto Toronto Reference Library 20 Bay Street, Suite 1310 789 Yonge Street (2nd Floor Reference Desk) Toronto, Ontario M5J 2N8 Toronto, Ontario M4W 2G8 (416) 214-1344 (416) 395-5577
City of Toronto Clerk’s Office (Works Committee Office) 100 Queen Street West, 10th Fl., W. Tower Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 (416) 392-8016
This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was June 19, 2014. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Review documents the ministry’s evaluation of the EA and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.
© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2014 PIBS 9712e Cette publication est disponible en français. Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1 1. Environmental Assessment Process ...... 2 1.1 Terms of Reference ...... 2 1.2 Environmental Assessment ...... 3 1.3 Ministry Review ...... 4 2. The Proposed Undertaking ...... 5 3. Results of the Ministry Review ...... 10 3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA ...... 10 3.1.1 Ministry Analysis ...... 10 3.1.2 Consultation ...... 10 3.1.3 Conclusion ...... 15 3.2 EA Process ...... 16 3.2.1 Key Issues ...... 17 3.2.2 Conclusion ...... 17 3.3 Proposed Undertaking...... 18 3.3.1 Key Issues ...... 18 3.3.2 Conclusion ...... 20 4. Summary of the Ministry Review ...... 21 5. What Happens Now? ...... 22 5.1 Additional Approvals Required ...... 22 5.2 Modifying or Amending the Proposed Undertaking ...... 23
List of Appendices Appendix A Environmental Assessment Act Requirements Appendix B Submissions Received During the Initial Comment Period Appendix C Supplemental Information
List of Tables Table 1 Government Review Team Comment Summary Table Table 2 Public Comment Summary Table
List of Figures
Figure 1 Proposed Undertaking Figure 2 Study Area Figure 3 Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Methods in the EA
Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
Executive Summary
WHO Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in conjunction with Waterfront Toronto, and the City of Toronto
WHAT Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes: . Naturalization of the Lower Don River including river valley formation and relocated river mouth . Creation of a floodplain for flood protection including a flood protection landform, valley wall feature and wetlands . Sediment, debris and ice management
WHEN EA Submitted: March 3, 2014
EA Submission Comment Period: March 3 to April 21, 2014
WHERE Lands surrounding the Lower Don River and mouth of the Don River within the waterfront area and in the Lower Don Lands area in the Port Lands of the City of Toronto. Also includes the Don Narrows River Channel from the CN rail bridge to Riverdale Park.
WHY The proposal is intended to improve ecological function at the Don River mouth, remove the risk and vulnerability to flooding of 230 hectares of urban land to the south and east of the river, and to address the derelict nature of the Port Lands in the City of Toronto. Improvements will contribute to the revitalization and sustainability of the Toronto waterfront consistent with Waterfront Toronto’s Sustainability Framework and objectives and the City of Toronto’s planning for the waterfront.
CONCLUSIONS The Ministry Review of the EA concluded that the proponent has prepared the EA in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference (ToR) and the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The ministry is satisfied that the proponents (TRCA, Waterfront Toronto, and the City of Toronto) used a clear and logical decision making process to determine how the preferred undertaking was selected from the alternatives considered. Proposed conditions of approval are recommended for the implementation of the undertaking.
July 2014 1 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
1. Environmental Assessment Process
Environmental Assessment (EA) is a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into the decision-making process by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out the general contents for the preparation of an EA, as well as EA Process the ministry’s evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject the EAA, approval under the EAA is ToR Approval required before the undertaking can proceed. ↓ EA Preparation Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure ↓ the protection, conservation and wise management of the EA Submission environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the potential ↓ environmental effects and benefits, if an undertaking should EA Comment Period proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed. ↓ Ministry Review EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider ↓ alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, Review Comment Period evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The ↓ proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and Minister’s Decision mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.
1.1 Terms of Reference
Preparing an EA is a two-step application to the Minister of the Environment (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE/ministry) for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.
On August 18, 2006, the Minister approved the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project ToR. The ToR sets out how the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in conjunction with Waterfront Toronto, and the City of Toronto (proponents) would assess alternatives, assess environmental effects and consult with the public, government agencies and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the EA. The ToR established the proponents’ work plan for assessing and evaluating alternatives including the provision of mitigating environmental effects as part of the EA. This included assessing alternative discharge points for the river mouth and valley alignments; assessing the river characteristics and identifying the appropriate
July 2014 2 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
forms and functions for each alternative and selecting a preferred alternative. The ToR also established the preliminary environmental evaluation criteria and project objectives with which each alternative would be considered. The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.
1.2 Environmental Assessment
Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the ministry for review and a decision.
On December 17, 2010 the proponents originally submitted the EA to the ministry for a review. The original EA comment period was from December 17, 2010 until February 11, 2011. The EA was then revised on April 8, 2011 and resubmitted to the ministry in response to comments raised.
In September 2011, the City of Toronto Council endorsed a protocol for the revitalization of the Port Lands (known as the Port Lands Acceleration Initiative). This protocol required that the City of Toronto be included as a co-proponent for the project and that certain aspects of the project be re-examined including the costing and economic analysis from the business and implementation plan that was prepared by Waterfront Toronto. The purpose or ultimate goal of the protocol was to determine if the cost of development could be reduced and to develop a phased approach to development which would provide opportunities for surrounding urban redevelopment to fund the required infrastructure including flood protection. As such alternative methods and phasing in the EA were re-examined. The protocol also required that any revisions to the EA be subject to additional public consultation. As a result of this initiative, the proponent requested an extension to the completion of the Ministry Review to undertake this work (February 2011- May 2014).
Following further public consultation efforts and a comprehensive planning and design process, the analysis reconfirmed the fundamental conclusions of the EA however it resulted in a slight realignment of the river and river mouth into the Inner Harbour to the north, a shift of the overflow greenway to the east adjacent the Don Roadway and no lakefilling in the Inner Harbour to create the promontories at the river mouth between the two quays. As such, the EA was revised to reflect a new preferred alternative river alignment and various other changes to the project. In addition to other consultation opportunities such as notices, workshops, meetings, and a public information centre, the public and government agencies were given an opportunity to comment on the draft amended EA in December 2013. The amended EA was formally submitted to the ministry for review on March 3, 2014. The public and agency comment period for this EA submission was from March 3 to April 21, 2014.
July 2014 3 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
1.3 Ministry Review
The EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. The public and Aboriginal communities also had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the ministry. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the EA undertaking.
The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the Ministry Review (Review). The Review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and therefore meets the requirements of the EAA and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.
The Review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff, with input from the GRT, evaluates the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects, the proposed mitigation measures and benefits of proceeding. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, agency and Aboriginal community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.
The Minister considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision; the Review itself is not the EA decision making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be made following the end of the five-week Review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the Review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.
A Notice of Completion of the Review was published in July 2014 indicating that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period. Copies of the Review have been placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period have also received copies of the Review.
July 2014 4 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
2. The Proposed Undertaking
Description of the Undertaking
In general, the proposed undertaking (Figure 1 of this Review) was identified in the EA consists of the following: . Naturalization of the Lower Don River in the Port Lands area of the waterfront of the City of Toronto including improvements to the Keating Channel and river valley formation and relocation of the river and the river mouth to the south of the Keating Channel and the creation of approximately 30 hectares of naturalized area/habitat; . Creation of a floodplain for flood protection including a flood protection landform, valley wall feature, Keating Channel weirs, levee systems and wetlands; . Creation of new sediment, debris and ice management areas and operations; and, . Associated management of soils from excavations and the creation of valley lands including remediation of contaminated soils.
The undertaking includes discharge of the low flow river channel to the Inner Harbour between Polson Quay and Cousins Quay south of Keating Channel and two overflow spillways: one through the Keating Channel and the other to the south through the Ship Channel, west of the Don Roadway. The low flow channel south of the Keating Channel is approximately 1745 metres long with its associated valley lands of 100 to 200 metres wide from its upstream to downstream end into Lake Ontario. The inside of the existing Keating Channel will be narrowed with stone revetments to create fish habitat.
The Ship Channel wetland is approximately 190 metres long and will have a valley width of approximately 150 metres.
The lands north of the Keating Channel will be maintained as a fully engineered river channel with a new sediment/debris management area and a flood protection landform on the east side of the river north of Lakeshore Boulevard. On the east side of the river south of Lakeshore Boulevard extending to the Ship Channel there will be a flood protection valley wall feature.
Appendix C of this Review contains more information about the key components of the undertaking. For a detailed and complete description of the undertaking, Chapter 6 of the EA should be consulted.
If EAA approval is granted, the project will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA; any proposed conditions of approval; and will include the details outlined in Chapter 6 of the EA. In addition, the proponents must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.
Purpose of Undertaking
The proposal is intended to improve the ecological function at the Don River mouth, remove the risk and vulnerability to flooding of approximately 290 hectares of urban land east and north of the river, and to address the derelict nature of the Port Lands in the City of Toronto. Improvements will contribute to the revitalization and sustainability of the
July 2014 5 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
Toronto waterfront consistent with Waterfront Toronto’s Sustainability Framework and Waterfront Toronto’s objectives and the City of Toronto’s planning for the waterfront.
Benefits from the project will include improving aquatic and terrestrial ecological functions and providing linkages to upstream habitats; creation of natural habitats; accommodating changes in precipitation, water flow and Lake Ontario water levels resulting from climate change; enhancing recreational opportunities, linkages and local aesthetics; and managing contaminated soils clean up.
Adaptive Environmental Management Approach
Chapter 8 of the EA includes compliance and environmental monitoring provisions. This also includes environmental performance monitoring or an adaptive environmental management approach which includes a process to continually improve environmental management practices by using information learned from monitoring to inform or make design refinements where required. It also serves to monitor baseline conditions and will identify any changes to the existing environmental conditions and will ensure that the project functions as intended during construction and operation. Such an approach is needed to provide flexibility for changing environmental conditions and future uses; to adjust sediment management practices in response to unexpected events; to provide a means of maximizing projects benefits and to minimize environmental effects; and to adapt to changes in local weather conditions and long term climate changes.
Land Ownership
It is anticipated that the valley lands and sediment management area will be owned and/or managed by TRCA through agreement with the City of Toronto. The Toronto Port Authority (TPA) may retain the dredging and sediment management function or TRCA or the City of Toronto may inherent this responsibility. During detailed design, land ownership and management responsibilities will be specifically defined.
Existing lands directly affected by the proposed undertaking predominately include public lands owned by the City of Toronto and the Toronto Port Lands Company (TPLC) (formerly the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO)), the province and the Toronto Port Authority TPA (water lots) which will be displaced by the proposed undertaking.
Private lands will not be displaced however there are some privately held business operations that may be potentially affected by the project (e.g. First Gulf Don Valley Limited (previously the Unilever Canada site); Lafarge Canada Inc.). Impacts to these developments can be managed through mitigation.
Existing and Proposed Land Uses
Existing land uses affected by the undertaking are primarily industrial with a large portion being vacant industrial lands with some industrial and commercial uses; as well as other uses such as recreational, telecommunications, entertainment, internet technology and government service uses. There are no existing residential uses in this area.
July 2014 6 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
Proposed or planned land uses include open space within the river valley; some recreational lands adjacent to the proposed river valley and adjacent mixed use residential, commercial development and industries, recreational and other development in accordance with the City of Toronto’s proposed Central Waterfront Secondary Plan for the waterfront. Lands affected and adjacent to the undertaking are designated as a Special Policy Area using a two zone approach. New valley lands associated with Lower Don River are proposed as park and open space where development is not permitted. Development is allowed elsewhere adjacent the valley system. It is understood that future development surrounding the river valley will be planned through a future Precinct Plan for the Lower Don Lands area and a zoning by-law.
Project Implementation
The implementation of the project will occur within a 10 to 20 year timeframe. The project will be constructed in four phases as outlined in the EA. The timing and order of construction will be dependant on land requirements and available funding however the EA indicates that the project will be phased in such a way so that land use redevelopment can occur to match market demand and assist to fund flood protection works.
Other Components Not Part of Undertaking
Infrastructure such as bridge crossings for cars and pedestrians and the relocation of utilities, roads and services will be required as a result of the new design for the river and proposed surrounding mixed use residential development and industries. Such changes would mostly be done through the Municipal Class EA process. Specifically, the completed Lower Don Lands EA Master Plan project under the Municipal Class EA provides the basis for realignment of existing infrastructure and the construction of new infrastructure that is compatible with the new location of the naturalized Lower Don River. It is intended that provisions for infrastructure (e.g. bridge footings and underground utility/servicing tunnels, and other types, etc) will be coordinated with the staged construction of the proposed undertaking.
Although not part of undertaking for approval, the proposed design for the Lower Don River will also result in the creation of 13 hectares of public realm and open space areas adjacent but outside of the valley system to be used for passive and active recreational uses. The design also makes provisions for the construction of a trail within the valley lands along the proposed relocated river to provide connections with other existing and proposed trails systems going through this area. There will also be some naturalization and river improvements to the Don Narrows.
July 2014 7 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
Figure 1: Proposed Undertaking
July 2014 8 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
Figure 2: Study Area
July 2014 9 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
3. Results of the Ministry Review
The Review provides the analysis of the EA. The Review The purpose of the Ministry is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the Review is to determine whether: information found in the EA. For information on the • The EA has met the decision making process, refer to the EA itself. The EA requirements of the ToR and and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning the EAA. process and demonstrates how the proponent has • There are any outstanding selected the preferred undertaking and made the final issues with the EA. decision. • The proposed undertaking has technical merit. 3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA
3.1.1 Ministry Analysis
The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the Must Haves in the EA: requirements of the ToR have been met. • The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR. The ministry is satisfied that the EA followed the • EA must include all the basic EAA framework as set out in the ToR, addressed the information requirements. commitments made in the ToR and that the requirements of the EAA have been addressed. • EA demonstrates where all the additional commitments in the ToR Appendix A of this Review summarizes this were met, including studies and the consultation process. analysis and identifies how the ToR requirements have been addressed in the EA.
3.1.2 Consultation
One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre- Section 5.1 of the EAA states: submission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the “When preparing proposed responsibility of the proponent and must be undertaken terms of reference and an prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with environmental assessment, the the consultation plan outlined in the ToR. proponent shall consult with such persons as may be interested.” The ministry is satisfied that the level of consultation completed for the EA was appropriate for this undertaking and was consistent with the approved ToR. The EA clearly documents the consultation methods used to engage all interested persons in the EA process. The Executive Summary, Chapter 10 and Appendix Q in the EA describe the consultation activities and the issues that were raised.
Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and affected Aboriginal communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the EA itself
July 2014 10 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the ministry during the EA comment period were forwarded to the proponents for a response. Summaries of all comments received along with the proponents’ responses are included in Tables 1-3 of this Review. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B of this Review.
Government Review Team and Agencies
During the preparation of the EA, the proponents consulted with government and other agencies such as the Ministries of Environment, Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Energy, Transportation, Economic Development, Trade and Employment (MEDTE), and Tourism, Culture and Sport; Infrastructure Ontario; the City of Toronto; the TPLC (formerly TEDCO); GO Transit/Metrolinx; CN Railway; the TPA; the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA); Transport Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Environment Canada; public utility companies (Hydro One, Toronto Hydro, Bell Canada, Enbridge Gas); Aquatic Habitat Toronto and others (Toronto Police, Ontario Provincial Police, Toronto Transit Commission, etc).
Consultation occurred initially through the establishment of a technical advisory committee and then through meetings and correspondence with agencies; and review of draft EA documents.
As part of the submission of the EA, the ministry circulated the EA to all interested government agencies.
Comments were received on the original submission of the EA in February 2011 by provincial ministries including the MOE; the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS); the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and the Ministry of Infrastructure, Ontario Growth Secretariat. Comments during this period were also provided by Environment Canada; Hydro One Networks; the TPLC; and, the TPA.
In general, most provincial and federal government agencies either had no concerns or had no significant outstanding concerns with the proposal in 2011. MOE technical reviewers were generally satisfied with the proposal. The Environmental Approvals Branch (EAB) (Air and Noise) indicated that the proponents are required to update the noise assessment work for the sediment management facilities during the detailed design to confirm the final mitigation. The noise assessment work will be submitted to the ministry for review prior to construction. The proponents committed to undertake this work as part of the EA. The MTCS requested that the proponents include additional mitigation to recognize the loss of culture heritage features and other comments requested that cultural heritage assessment work be completed. The proponents included a commitment to complete this work during the detailed design in the EA. Issues were also raised by the TPA in 2011 including potential impacts on port operations such as impacts on commercial shipping including the loss of dock walls and navigation of ships in the harbour. These issues were subsequently resolved by changes that occurred to the proposed undertaking which retained existing dock walls and eliminated the proposed promontories (infilled open space areas) originally proposed to jut out into the Inner Harbour.
July 2014 11 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
During the review of the draft 2013 amended EA, comments were submitted to the proponent from MOE, MTCS, MNR, Hydro One Networks, CEAA, MEDTE and Toronto Public Health. No significant concerns were raised about the EA; however, MTCS requested that it review the cultural heritage evaluation reports prior to construction associated with cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage resources that may be affected by the project. Toronto Public Health requested to be involved on the advisory committee of stakeholders as part of the implementation of the undertaking. Hydro One Networks provided advice about any works which may affect its infrastructure and MNR indicated that all flood protection measures must be carried out in accordance with MNR’s Natural Hazard Technical Guidelines 2002. It is noted that there are no species at risk affected by the proposal. The proponents provided a response to comments provided as documented in the EA and have committed to address all the items raised as part of the EA (Table 8-2). It was also confirmed by the proponents that no federal EA would be required for this project. MEDTE indicated that it supported the project and the resulting economic benefits to employment.
Agency comments received on the current 2014 amended EA submission included comments from the MOE, MEDTE, and Transport Canada. In general, MOE technical reviewers including Central Regional Office, the Toronto District Office, and EAB (Waste Water) were satisfied with the proposal and provided advice about subsequent permits and approvals required for the project. The noise reviewer in EAB made reference to its original comments that further noise assessment work for the sediment management facilities would be required during the detailed design. The noise assessment work will be submitted to the MOE for review prior to construction. While the proponent has committed to undertake and consult with MOE about this work in the EA, a proposed condition of approval is recommended to clarify this requirement, if the EA is approved. Transport Canada confirmed its permit requirements and that no federal lands would be involved. As a result, the project will not trigger a federal EA under CEAA. No other agency comments were received.
Table 1 of Appendix B of this Review provides a summary of the comments received as well as the proponents’ responses to those issues and MOE’s level of satisfaction with the response provided.
Public Consultation
The proponents used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public. This included:
. 5 public forums/open houses; . Newsletters and flyers; . Web site information; . Site walk and boat tour; . Community Liaison Committee meetings; . Community workshops and events; . Notices, letters and correspondence; . Meetings with members of the public and community groups;
July 2014 12 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
. Meetings with key landowners (e.g. TPLC, Lafarge Canada Incorporated, Home Depot; First Gulf Don Valley Developments (previously the Unilever Canada site); Redpath Sugar Limited, Infrastructure Ontario-Ontario Realty Corporation, etc).
Public forums/events were advertised by notices in the local newspapers, web site information, direct mailings/e-mail of newsletters and flyers. Comments received at various public venues are documented in Chapter 10 and Appendix Q in the EA. As identified in the ToR, the public and agencies were involved in finalizing the proposed environmental criteria and objectives for the project.
In 2011, during the original comment period on the EA, 8 public/stakeholder comments were received by the ministry. Six of the submissions received indicated their support for the project including comments from the Don Watershed Regeneration Council; the Task Force to Bring Back the Don; the West Don Lands Committee; and, members of the public.
Also at that time in 2011, issues were raised by two private sector landowners with existing businesses in the area that included one business in the central waterfront area (Redpath Sugar Limited) and one business in the Lower Don area (LaFarge Canada Incorporated). Key issues and concerns included potential economic impacts on these businesses including impacts on commercial vessel ship navigation; the loss of mooring locations (dock walls) in the Inner Harbour; and water quality impacts. Since that time, these issues have been addressed by changes to the preferred undertaking and ongoing consultation by the proponents with these businesses. The proponents have proposed for Lafarge that the construction staging strategy provide for continued dockwall access at its current location while the rest of the project is being implemented and until such time as Lafarge wishes to relocate.
In 2011, Lafarge also had other concerns that the proposal did not conform with the Planning Act and the Growth Plan and other issues. At that time the ministry consulted with the Growth Plan Secretariat and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing who confirmed that the proposed undertaking had regard for or was consistent with the Planning Act and the Growth Plan.
As part of the 2014 submission of the amended EA to the ministry, three public comments were received including comments from a local business (First Gulf Don Valley Limited), a community group (the Don Watershed Regeneration Council), and a resident. Both the local business and the community group are supportive of the project but did have some comments on potential impacts to the local business and other matters such as support for habitat areas, phasing, sediment and debris management, climate change considerations, and stormwater management.
Refer to Section 3.3.1 of this Review for some of the key issues raised, and to Table 2 in Appendix B of this Review for a summary of all of the issues raised as well as the proponents’ responses to those issues and MOE’s level of satisfaction with the response provided.
The EA indicates that public and agency consultation will continue as part of project implementation. Public forums are planned during the detailed design and construction
July 2014 13 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
phase. As well, a public advisory committee will be established during the construction of the project. During the detailed design, a mechanism will also be established for managing complaints from construction activities. Regular project updates will also continue to be provided through newsletters and the project web site.
Aboriginal Community Consultation
In addition to public consultation, the EAA requires Aboriginal rights stem from practices, that Aboriginal communities within the surrounding customs or traditions which are integral area of the proposed undertaking be consulted to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal with during the pre-submission period. Aboriginal community claiming the right. communities have special land and treaty rights that need to be considered. Treaty rights stem from the signing of treaties by Aboriginal peoples with the The proponents and the ministry contacted Crown. Aboriginal communities about the project during the preparation and submission of the EA to the Aboriginal rights and treaty rights are ministry. Communities were identified by protected by section 35 of the contacting the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Constitution Act, 1982. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada during the ministry’s review of the ToR and the EA.
The proponents contacted and discussed the project with potentially affected Aboriginal communities such as the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation; the Williams Treaty First Nations; the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation; the Toronto and York Region Métis Council; the Métis Nation of Ontario; the Huron Wendat First Nation; and, others as identified in Section 10.1.3 and 10.3.3 of the EA. A workshop was also held by Waterfront Toronto for interested First Nations. Also notices, correspondence, newsletters and project updates were provided to Aboriginal communities.
The proponents had various meetings and provided notices and project updates to the Williams Treat First Nations and the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation who settled a specific claim for lands within the City of Toronto. General interest by the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation was expressed related to preservation of any future Aboriginal artifacts that may be identified and the management of contaminated soils. The proponents provided information to the First Nation explaining the process/mitigation measures involved to address these items. No other specific issues of concern were identified with the project.
With respect to the other Aboriginal communities consulted in 2013 about the draft EA, the Alderville First Nation indicated that the project would have minimal potential to impact their rights but indicated that they would like to be advised of any archaeological findings or burial sites and suggested that wild rice be planted as part of the naturalization. Similarly the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation also had an interest in wild rice being introduced in this area as noted in its comments on the project to the ministry. The proponents hope to be able to establish such a plant community in either the greenway area beside the Ship Channel or if not another area will be choosen
July 2014 14 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
which will be less urbanized and less vulnerable to interference by carp such as Tommy Thomson Park.
During the formal comment period for the EA submission, the Curve Lake First Nation indicated that it applauded the proponents’ efforts to naturalize the river. The Rama First Nation indicated that it would be conducting a further review of the Project. The Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation provided comments on the draft EA to the proponents during this period about management of contaminated soils and indicated their interest in wild rice being introduced in this area as noted above. No additional comments were provided by Aboriginal communities during this period.
It is noted that a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment was prepared for the project and identified that there little to no potential for any Aboriginal archaeological resources in the area as it was very disturbed by past infilling activities and industrial uses. An archaeologist will be on-site during construction to identify if there are any deeply buried resources. The EA indicates that if Aboriginal resources are identified during construction Aboriginal communities will be further consulted.
Fish habitat in the lower Don River and the Keating Channel is described as degraded, highly disturbed and lacking in diversity and complexity. During project construction there will be impacts to low quality fish habitat from the infilling of the Essroc Quay as well as temporary nuisance impacts to fish from construction which will managed through mitigation such as reducing sedimentation in accordance with Best Management Practices (e.g. avoiding construction on windy days to reduce sedimentation); construction in the dry; timing construction to avoid any adverse flow conditions or migration periods, etc. In addition there are potential temporary impacts to water quality from construction. The project will however result in significant overall net benefits through the creation of extensive new habitat for fish in the Don River as well as improvements to water quality from the naturalization. The proponents will be required to address all municipal, provincial, and federal requirements and regulations for in water works and management of any contaminated soils.
Ministry Conclusions on the Consultation Program
Overall, the ministry believes that the proponents provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. Feedback from the public and agencies affected decision making and mitigation proposed. The proponents provided various opportunities for input at key milestones in the EA process. Public and agency consultation will continue as part of project implementation. The proponents’ consultation program was consistent with its approved ToR.
3.1.3 Conclusion
The ministry is satisfied that the EA was consistent with the approved ToR and is satisfied that the requirements of the EAA have been addressed.
July 2014 15 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
3.2 EA Process
The EA and technical appendices outlines the planning process followed and demonstrates how the proponents have selected the preferred undertaking.
According to the approved ToR, the EA would be prepared in accordance with section 6.1(2) of the EAA. Section 6.1(2) of the EAA outlines the generic requirements of the EAA including identifying the problem or opportunity, considering alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluating the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative or undertaking.
The proponents followed a logical and transparent decision making process as outlined in the EA. Refer to Appendix A of this Review for the ministry’s analysis.
In general, the process for evaluation included:
• Identifying a problem and opportunity and alternatives which could address.
• Identifying and refining the study area which described the existing environment potentially affected for lands surrounding the Lower Don River as well as the broader environmental impact study area for lands in and around the Inner and Outer Harbour (Figure 2) which is intended to capture all of the potential environmental effects associated with the project. Refer also to Chapter 2 of the EA for a detailed description of the study area.
• Providing a rationale and describing and evaluating the “alternative to” for various proposed river discharge points into the Inner and Outer Harbour and the Ship Channel. This included the “Do Nothing” option.
• Providing a rationale and describing and evaluating the “alternative methods”. This included carrying forward the “Do Nothing” option as a base case comparison to the preferred alternative. Refer to Figure 3 of this Review for proponents’ process of identifying and evaluating the long list and short list of alternatives. Alternative methods consisted of various river valley locations and discharge points into the Inner Harbour of Lake Ontario and the Ship Channel including:
• Discharge to the Inner Harbour near Keating Channel, • Discharge and river alignment through the Port Lands to the Ship Channel; • Two discharge points including discharge near Keating Channel to the Inner Harbour and a river alignment through the Port Lands with a spillway to the Ship Channel; • Two discharges points including spillways near the Keating Channel to the Inner Harbour and a river alignment through the Port Lands with the main discharge point to the Ship Channel; • One discharge point and two spillways, including a spillway near the Keating Channel and to the Ship Channel and a main discharge point and river alignment to the south of the Keating Channel to the Inner Harbour (two
July 2014 16 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
location options including original preferred alternative and amended preferred alternative).
• Describing the natural, social, cultural, and economic environments potentially affected in the study area for each alternative using an assessment of the project objectives for naturalization, flood protection, Waterfront Toronto’s Sustainability objectives and environmental criteria and indicators. The criteria and indicators were developed with input from the public and government agencies. Mitigation was also considered for construction related effects and other effects.
• Undertaking a comparative analysis of each alternative including evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of one alternative against another.
• Identifying and providing a rationale for selecting the preferred alternative including a detailed description of the preferred alternative/undertaking; assessment of the environmental effects; and providing proposed mitigation and net effects associated with the preferred alternative/undertaking.
Potential Environmental Effects
Potential environmental effects may include effects on fish habitat; economic effects including displacement of public property as well as potential impacts on some private land uses; potential impacts on port operations, infrastructure and utilities, cultural heritage landscapes and some built heritage features, and, other effects. The project does not involve the displacement of any private landowners.
The majority of environmental effects associated with the preferred undertaking include impacts from construction which can be mitigated including air quality/dust control; noise from machinery; soil management including excavation, filling, storing, clean up of contaminated soils, etc; management of ground water/dewatering; water quality including in water works (e.g. lake filling); nuisance effects; erosion and sediment controls; storm water management during construction; drilling; and impacts on marine operations. Potential environmental effects, benefits and proposed mitigation measures for the proposed undertaking are described in Chapter 7 and Appendix G of the EA.
3.2.1 Conclusion
Overall, the ministry is satisfied with the proponents’ decision making process. The EA was amended to provide greater clarity about the assumptions and conclusions which were provided in the EA. In the EA, the proponents were transparent about how it considered changes to the study area, criteria, and the assessment of alternatives which are permitted by the ToR. All alternatives were reassessed based on the changes which were done in consultation with stakeholders. The preferred alternative or undertaking that was identified was subject to a detailed assessment (Chapters 4, 5, 7, Appendices E, F, G, H, and M of the EA). The proponents have also provided a detailed response to public and agency issues raised during the preparation of the EA in Chapter 10 of the EA.
July 2014 17 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
Figure 3 – Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Methods in EA
The proponents are responsible for determining the alternatives that are reasonable to address the purpose of the study (problem or opportunity) in consultation with interested parties. In this case, the problem or opportunity (naturalization, flood protection for the river and addressing the derelict nature of the Port Lands) is consistent with the ToR. A ToR prepared under section 6.1(2) is not meant to unduly restrict a proponent from assessing effects, developing additional alternatives or considering different designs which would address the problem or opportunity. The ministry is satisfied that the required process components under the EAA have been addressed.
3.3 Proposed Undertaking
3.3.1 Key Issues
Issues regarding the EA completed by the proponents for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA submission comment period. A number of comments were provided by the GRT and the public. All comments, including the proponents’ responses and MOE’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B of this Review. Some of the key issues are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Public comments received from First Gulf Don Valley Limited clarified that they would be demolishing their existing industrial building and replacing it with an office building and other commercial uses as such they indicated that they preferred that a valley wall
July 2014 18 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
feature be constructed in lieu of a flood protection landform to allow for more developable land on the property. The proponents have indicated that if approval is obtained under the Planning Act that results in different potential environmental effects then there are amending procedures in place in the EA to consider and address this issue. The proponents also note that proposed construction timing of 5-10 years for Phases 1 and 2 of the project may align with First Gulf’s construction timing and there would be opportunities to coordinate the development of this project with First Gulf’s proposal. The ministry is satisfied with this approach. The proponents will also be required to consult with the ministry on any such amendments in accordance with the amending procedures in the EA.
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council confirmed its support for the project but offered some comments related to encouraging construction of the river (Phase 3) sooner as the development of the river, wetlands, and open space areas are the most effective catalyst to change the Port Lands. They also had concerns associated with potential noise impacts from proposed dredging facilities to manage sediment in the river near the Ship Channel area. They were concerned that if further work resulted in greater potential noise impacts that they would prefer the facilities to be located north of Lakeshore Boulevard. They also indicated that bridge clearances should err on the side of caution to accommodate potentially larger floods in the future that might result from climate change. They also had comments about stormwater management including that they prefer to have any required stormwater treatment facility located at Lakeshore Boulevard rather than adjacent to Cousins or Polson Quay naturalized areas.
The proponents agreed that efforts would be made to accelerate the development of Phase 3 of the river. With respect to noise impacts from the sediment management facilities, two options are being considered in the EA for the hydrocyclone facility (north of Lakeshore Boulevard or near the Ship Channel). The hydrocyclone is the facility that dewaters the dredged materials, separates the water and sediment and sorts sediment by grain size prior to disposal. Each option will require further detailed analysis and may be informed by other initiatives such as changes to the Gardiner Expressway or the Port Lands Master Plan. The proponents will be required to undertake a detailed noise assessment for any such proposal and to provide it to the ministry for review during the detailed design stage. A final location will be proposed and final mitigation measures will be determined. A proposed condition of approval is recommended to clarify this requirement, if the EA is approved.
Climate change considerations have been incorporated into the EA and a number of safety measures have been incorporated in the EA to address any future increases in weather events. Storm water from surrounding developments is intended to be discharged to the Keating Channel, the Ship Channel or the Inner Harbour and not the created wetlands habitats for this project. If there is to be any storm water run off from surrounding developments entering the habitat wetlands areas this water will be treated as the wetlands are not intended to be an area for stormwater management which would require an Environmental Compliance Approval for sewage works. The ministry notes that the location of any stormwater management treatment facilities that may be required for surrounding development is addressed under the Lower Don Lands EA Master Plan under the Municipal Class EA which has recently been completed.
July 2014 19 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
A resident has also raised a number of concerns about the EA including looking at species in the natural areas and the amendment procedures eroding the integrity of the EA. The resident also raises matters outside of the scope of the project including providing additional green spaces south of the Ship Channel; naturalization of the Don Narrows and associated linkages to Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine; and, the use of the 10 metre setback from the top of the bank for future development outside of the flood plain area. The proponents have provided a response to these issues in Table 2 of Appendix B of the Review. The ministry is satisfied with the response provided and notes that in general any amendments to the EA must be done in consultation with the ministry.
3.3.2 Conclusion
Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponents’ decision making process and the proposed undertaking. The ministry is satisfied that commitments made in the EA and any proposed conditions of approval will ensure that potential environmental effects can be addressed. The ministry is also satisfied with the consultation undertaken on the EA and that appropriate parties will continue to be consulted as part of the implementation of the undertaking.
July 2014 20 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
4. Summary of the Ministry Review
The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood protection project EA.
This Review concludes that:
• The ministry is satisfied that the EA has met the requirements of the ToR and the EAA.
• The ministry is satisfied that the proponents have provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT; members of the public and other stakeholders; and, Aboriginal communities to provide input into the EA. The results of the consultations have also been clearly documented in the consultation record provided in the EA.
• The ministry is satisfied with the proponents’ responses to the GRT and public submissions.
• The proponents used a clear and logical decision making process to determine how the preferred undertaking was chosen in accordance with the approved ToR.
• The ministry has enough information about the potential environmental effects to enable a decision to be made about the proposed undertaking. Proposed conditions of approval will ensure that environmental effects can be verified and mitigation of effects is achievable (e.g. the ministry to review detailed noise assessment for hydrocyclone).
• If the EA is approved, standard conditions of approval are also recommended for the implementation of the undertaking including general requirements to comply with the EA and any commitments provided; obtain other approvals and permits under other statutes; documentation requirements for the public record; compliance monitoring provisions for the proponents to conduct and report on compliance; amending procedures; and the preparation of a complaints protocol to respond to all complaints received during all phases of the undertaking.
July 2014 21 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
5. What Happens Now? Next Step in the The Review will be made available for a five-week comment EA Process period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit ToR Approval comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the Review. At this time, anyone can request ↓ that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the EA Preparation Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe ↓ that their concerns have not been addressed. EA Submission At the end of the Review comment period, ministry staff will ↓ make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether EA Comment Period the EA has been prepared in accordance with the ToR and ↓ the requirements of the EAA and whether the proposed Ministry Review undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the ToR, ↓ the EA, the Review, the comments submitted during the EA Review and the Review comment period and any other matters the Comment Period Minister may consider relevant. ↓ Minister’s Decision The Minister will make one of the following decisions:
• Give approval to proceed with the undertaking; • Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions; or • Refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking.
Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision.
If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.
5.1 Additional Approvals Required
If EAA approval is granted, the proponents will still require other If EAA approval is granted, the legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this proponent must still undertaking. Section 1.5 of the EA outlines additional approvals obtain any other that may be required. These approvals may include: permits or approvals required to construct • Approvals from the TPA (e.g. water lots) and operate this • Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources undertaking. Act (e.g. Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA); Permit to Take Water); • Record of Site Condition under Regulation 153/04 for contaminated soils;
July 2014 22 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA Review
• Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act; • TRCA Regulation of Development and Ontario Regulation 166/06 –Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Water Courses; • Infrastructure Ontario Class EA approval for disposition lands (sediment management); • Official Plan Amendment 388 implementation and rezoning under the Planning Act; • Site plan approval under the Planning Act for sediment and debris management area (if required) • Federal permits and authorizations from Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada; • Other City of Toronto permits and approvals.
These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.
5.2 Modifying or Amending the Proposed Undertaking
Given the anticipated 10-20 year build out the undertaking and the adaptive management approach as a result of performance monitoring, it is anticipated that there may be modifications to the design and scheduling of the undertaking. In Chapter 9 of the EA, amending procedures are proposed to address any modifications. In general, these procedures include documentation of any proposed changes and potential environmental effects/mitigation and public and agency consultation on the modifications as warranted by the extent of the change.
It should be noted that the MOE will be responsible for reviewing any modifications and confirming the appropriate use of these amending procedures. A condition of approval is recommended to clarify this matter.
Any changes which are considered to be outside the scope of theses amending procedures may be considered a new undertaking under Section 12 of the EAA and as such the proponents would be required to meet Part II of the EAA (prepare an individual EA) or follow the Conservation Ontario Class EA for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects as may be applicable.
July 2014 23 APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) and Terms of Reference (ToR) Requirements of the Environmental Assessment (EA)
EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA Problem/Opportunities Identify an existing The EA should contain a brief • The ministry is satisfied that Chapter 2 of the problem or opportunity explanation of the problem or EA adequately identifies the purpose of the opportunity that prompted the project (problem or opportunity). proposed activity. • The purpose of the undertaking is to remove Purpose of the If a specific undertaking has been flood risk to over 290 hectares of urban land to Undertaking: identified provide a brief description. the south and east of the Lower Don River in s.6.1(2)(a) the City of Toronto. The proposal also provides a means to revitalize the Toronto waterfront through naturalization of the mouth of the Don River in accordance with the planning for the City of Toronto.
Alternatives Description and Statement “Alternatives to” represent functionally Chapter 4 of the EA included a description and of the Rationale for the different ways of addressing the rationale for “alternatives to” including: Alternatives to: problem or opportunity. • Do Nothing; • Discharge to the Inner Harbour near Keating Alternative to A reasonable range of “alternatives to” Channel, s.6.1(2)(b)(iii) should be identified and evaluated. • Discharge through the Port Lands to the Ship The proponent should be able to Channel; justify that it has considered a • Two discharge points including discharge to reasonable range of alternatives. the Inner Harbour and through the Port Lands to the Ship Channel; The “do nothing” alternative to should • Two discharges points to Inner Harbour and be included in the evaluation and will one discharge point to the Ship Channel; represent the “bench mark” situation. • Discharge to the outer harbour near Cherry Beach; • Discharge to the eastern end of the Outer Harbour, and, • Discharge to eastern Port Lands near the
- 1 –
EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA Ashbridges Bay area.
• The first four alternatives including Do Nothing as noted above were preferred as “alternatives to” and were carried forwarded to be further examined and refined as part of the alternative methods.
• The identification and evaluation of discharge points as “alternatives to” is consistent with the approach provided in the approved ToR.
• “Alternatives to” were identified by the proponents and through consultation with the public.
• A reasonable range of alternatives were considered.
Description and Statement “Alternative methods” include a • Chapter 5 includes a description and a of the Rationale for the description of different ways of rationale for the proposed alternative methods. Alternatives methods: implementing the preferred This included various river valley locations and “alternative to” discharge points for the river to Lake Ontario. Alternative Methods This also included assessing the river s.6.1(2)(b)(ii) A reasonable range of “alternative characteristics (volume of water, flow rate, methods” should be identified and water quality and sediment quantity) and outlined. identifying the appropriate forms (discharge points and cross sections), habitat or vegetative features and functions for each alternative to produce a long list of alternatives. A final technical feasibility and assessment was undertaken to identify a short list of 5 alternatives which were assessed against the project objectives and environmental assessment criteria.
- 2 –
EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA
• The methodology used to evaluate alternatives is consistent with the approved ToR.
• The decision making process explains how the proponents evaluated the alternative methods to determine the proposed undertaking.
• In Chapters 5, environmental effects were considered for each alternative considering the project objectives, criteria, indicators as identified in the ToR and as confirmed as part of the EA process and the study of the existing environment. These criteria generally reflect the natural, social, cultural and economic components of the environment.
• A reasonable range of alternatives were considered.
Evaluation Description of the Proponents must consider the broad Existing Environment Environment definition of the environment including • The existing and future environmental s.6.1(2)(c)(i) the natural, biophysical, social, conditions are described in Chapter 3 of the economic, built and cultural EA. conditions. • The purpose of describing the existing The EA must provide a description of environment was to establish baseline the existing environmental conditions conditions and identify the potentially affected in the study area. environment.
The EA must identify those elements • The environment considered within the project of the environment that may be study area and the impact assessment study reasonably expected to be affected, area was broadly defined as required under either directly or indirectly, by the the EAA to include: natural environment proposed undertaking and/or the
- 3 –
EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA alternatives. (designated natural areas, aquatic habitat, fisheries, vegetation, wildlife, soils/geology, ground and surface water quality, river characteristics, flooding, hydrology, etc) atmospheric environment (air, noise); cultural environment (archaeological and cultural heritage); and, the socio-economic environment (recreational, marine uses, economic activities, existing and planned land uses, infrastructure, First Nation interests, sediment and debris management).
• In Chapters 4 and 5 of the EA, environmental effects were considered for each alternative.
Study Area (Chapter 2 of EA) • The project study area is located on lands surrounding the Lower Don River and mouth of the Don River within the waterfront area and the Port Lands area in the City of Toronto. Lands can generally be described to be east of Inner Harbour; south and surrounding the Gardiner Expressway; west of the Don Roadway and north of the Ship Channel. The study area also includes the Don Narrows river channel from the CN rail bridge north to Riverdale Park.
• The EA also identified a broader impact assessment area study area where there may be direct and indirect effects from the construction and creation of the proposed undertaking. This included the Inner Harbour, Outer Harbour, Port Lands; lands surrounding
- 4 –
EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA the Don Narrows; Toronto Islands, Ashbridges Bay; Tommy Thomson Park and central waterfront areas.
• The project study area identified in the ToR was refined and expanded during the development of the EA which is consistent with the flexibility provided for in the approved ToR.
• The project study area consists predominately of vacant industrial lands with some industrial and commercial uses as well as recreational, marine and other uses.
Description of Potential Both positive and negative • Potential environmental effects are evaluated Environmental Effects environmental effects should be throughout the EA for the alternatives and the s.6.1(2)(c)(ii) discussed. preferred undertaking.
The EA must identify methods and • Predicted environmental effects were identified studies used to analyze the potential in Chapters 4, 5, and 7 of the EA. Potential environmental effects. The methods environmental effects were predominately used are contingent on the type of related to the construction and property project. impacts.
Impact assessment methods and • Mitigation measures were considered for the criteria used during the evaluation alternatives and the preferred undertaking. should be identified. (construction related and other effects).
The methods chosen must be clear, • Various studies help to define the potential traceable and replicable so that effects to the environment including various interested parties can understand the baseline studies; The Toronto Waterfront analysis and logic used throughout the Sustainability Study; Port Lands Acceleration EA. Initiative; the Navigation Risk Report; Stage 1
- 5 –
EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA Archaeological Assessment; City of Toronto cultural heritage inventory; Don Narrows Study; Hydrodynamic Modelling Technical Memorandum; Economic Effects Assessment Technical Memorandum; various planning studies and other studies and Class EAs, reports and information prepared by other sources used to describe the existing environment as referenced in Section 1.4 of the Executive Summary.
In general, the ministry’s technical reviewers are satisfied with the EA. The technical review identified additional mitigation was required for noise associated with the sediment slurry pipe which will be reviewed during the detailed design. The ministry will also be involved in the review of the soil remediation and ground water strategies for site clean up for the Port Lands during the detailed design.
Description of the Actions A description of future commitments, • The potential environmental effects and Necessary to Prevent, studies and a work plan may be mitigation measures for the preferred Change, Mitigate or included as part of the actions undertaking and alternatives have been Remedy the necessary to prevent, change, considered in Chapters 5 and 7 and Appendix Environmental Effects mitigate or remedy environmental G of the EA. s.6.1(2)(c)(iii) effects for each alternative for the ultimate purpose of comparing them. • Chapter 7 of the EA describes the mitigation and net effects after mitigation for the preferred undertaking. Appendix G also describes the standard construction techniques and mitigation measures proposed.
• Chapter 8 includes provisions for compliance monitoring and describes the proposed
- 6 –
EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA environmental monitoring (baseline condition monitoring before project implementation and performance monitoring as part of detailed design; construction and post implementation. Monitoring also includes an adaptive management approach.
Evaluation of Advantages The preferred alternative should be • Advantages and disadvantage to the and Disadvantages to the identified through this evaluation. environment are evaluated throughout the EA. Environment s.6.1(2)(d) • Advantages and disadvantage to the environment are understood through a review of the comparative evaluation of alternatives provided in Chapters 4 and 5 of the EA. Advantages and disadvantages to proceeding with the project compared with doing nothing are also identified in Chapter 11 of the EA and through a review of the purpose of the undertaking (Chapter 2 of the EA) and economic considerations (Appendix O).
• While this EA would have benefited from a clearer description of the net effects and benefits of the alternatives in order to better evaluate the disadvantages versus the advantages, it would not have changed the conclusions of this EA.
• In general, the proponent’s decision making is clear and traceable with respect to the evaluation of alternatives.
• The comparative evaluation and assessment of alternatives methods were discussed with the public and other stakeholders (Chapter 10
- 7 –
EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA and Appendix Q of the EA).
Description of Consultation A description of stakeholder • Chapter 10 and Appendix Q provide a with Interested consultation that occurred during the consultation record for the EA. Stakeholders preparation of the EA needs be s.6.1(2)(e) documented and should include • A variety of methods were used to consult with consultation methods used, frequency the public, government agencies and of consultation, dates that events Aboriginal communities during key decision occurred, target audience, making milestones as discussed in the EA and descriptions of key milestones for this Review. which stakeholders are providing input, comments received. • Consultation with the public, agencies and Aboriginal communities was considered by the The EA must identify any Aboriginal proponents and resulted in changes to the consultation efforts that have been assessment as documented in the EA. made including methods for identifying potentially interested First Nations, • The ministry is satisfied that the public, who was consulted, when and how agencies and Aboriginal communities had consultation occurred and any opportunities to comment and provide input on comments received from First the EA throughout the process as discussed in Nations. the Review.
There must be clear documentation as • The ministry is satisfied that the consultation to how issues and concerns have undertaken was consistent with the been addressed. consultation plan in the approved ToR.
• The results of consultations and how issues were considered and addressed are clearly documented in the EA.
• If approved, consultation will continue as part of the project implementation. During detailed design the proponents will also establish a mechanism for managing complaints from
- 8 –
EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA construction activities.
Selection Process Proposed Undertaking The description of the undertaking • The evaluation process in Chapter 4 and 5 of should specify what the proponent is the EA explains why alternatives were chosen seeking approval for under the EAA. and why the preferred undertaking is selected.
Description and Statement The description should include • Chapter 6 of the EA provides a description of of the Rationale for the information on the location, attributes, the preferred undertaking. undertaking dimensions, emissions etc. s.6.1(2)(b)(i) • The preferred undertaking provides a clear The evaluation process should identify description of all of the components of the which is the preferred undertaking. undertaking including the river characteristics, proposed habitats, soil management/clean up, ice/sediment/debris management, location, size, maintenance, phasing, etc.
• If the EA is approved, the phases of project implementation would include detailed design; other permits and approvals; land acquisition; soil management/clean up and construction phasing and implementation. It is anticipated it will take 10-20 years to complete the project.
• Predicted environmental effects, and proposed mitigation are described in Chapter 7 of the EA.
• Chapter 8 of the EA describes the proposed environmental monitoring and adaptive environmental management strategy for the undertaking which includes methods to inform future design refinements and improve design and mitigation.
- 9 –
EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA • Given the 10-20 year project implementation schedule, an amending procedure is proposed to address needed changes and support the adaptive environmental management measures and any resulting changes which may be applied between the time of EA approval and detailed design/implementation of the project. Chapter 9 describes the amending procedures.
• Conditions of approval are proposed to clarify requirement for noise report for debris operations to be reviewed by the ministry as well as standard conditions of approvals.
• While committed to be established, there is no specific complaint protocols developed as part of the EA to deal with complaints during construction. As such a condition of approval is recommended to address this issue.
Regulation 334 s. 2.1 of O. Reg. 334 List of studies are required which were The ministry is satisfied that the EA meets the prepared for the EA by the proponent submission requirements of Regulation 334. as well as other studies referenced. An Executive Summary and unbound Maps, as required in section 2 of Regulation 334. Next Steps and Additional ToR Outline any further commitments Additional Commitments made by the proponent in the ToR. Commitments • Section 9 of the ToR outlined the • Consultation record documented in Chapter 10 guiding principles for consultation and Appendix Q of the EA is consistent with for the EA; the consultation the consultation plan provided in the approved objectives and mechanisms as ToR. Provisions for ongoing consultation are well as the key stakeholder to be also provided as part of the detailed design,
- 10 –
EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA consulted. construction and establishment phases (Section 10.4 of the EA). • Key Milestones for consultation identified included project initiation; long list of alternatives; short list of alternatives; preferred alternative and proposed design.
• Finalize list of impact assessment • Impact assessment criteria finalized with input criteria with input from the public from consultations undertaken during the EA and agencies during the EA. process.
• Development of a monitoring plan for the EA • An effects monitoring and compliance monitoring plans are described in Chapter 8 of the EA. Table 8-2 of Section 8.1.2 and Table E-7 of the Executive Summary includes a summary of the EA commitments. Also, Table E-5 of the Executive Summary provides a summary of the mitigation measures association with construction of the undertaking which are described in more detail • Other ToR commitments in Appendix G.
• A summary of how and where the ToR commitments are addressed in the EA is provided in Table 1-1 of Section 1.4 in Chapter 1.
Additional Approvals Outline additional approval • Section 1.5 of the EA identifies other requirements. Provide sufficient detail approvals required (Table 1-2). about the nature of the approval. • Permits and authorization from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Transport Canada and the Toronto Port Authority.
- 11 –
EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA • Environmental Compliance Approvals under the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act and a Permit to Take Water. • Record of Site Condition under Regulation 153/04 for contaminated soils. • Permit under Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. • Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Regulation of development and Ontario Regulation 166/06 –Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Water Courses. • Ministry of Infrastructure Class EA approval for disposition of land for the future sediment/debris management area. • Implementation of approvals under the Planning Act for amendment to the Lower Don Special Policy Areas Policies and a rezoning and, other approvals are required. • Other City of Toronto permits and approvals.
- 12 –
APPENDIX B
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED DURING INITIAL COMMENT PERIOD
TABLES
Table 1. Government Review Team Comment Summary Table
Proposal: Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Environmental Assessment (EA) Proponents: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Waterfront Toronto, and the City of Toronto
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Provincial Agencies Ministry of We are satisfied with the Environmental Assessment (EA) Comment noted. The ministry Economic and we have no comments. is satisfied. Development, Trade and Employment
Ministry of the Groundwater and Surface Water Comment noted. The ministry Environment is satisfied. (MOE)-Central We reviewed the draft EA reports and our concern over Region groundwater was with the possibility of creation of Technical pathways for migration of contaminated groundwater that Support Section would operate in the long term, i.e., after construction was completed. The proponent’s response to our concern summarizes the approach in Table 10-25 on page 10-55 of the March 2014 Amended EA report that would be taken to examine and mitigate such possible problems. We have no further concerns with this matter at present.
The EA reports describe current conditions and anticipate impacts to the surface water features, propose mitigation measures and monitoring for baseline and residual effects, as part of an adaptive management strategy. We have no further comments on this matter at present.
MOE-Toronto Anyone engaging in soil management activities is Comment noted. The ministry
- 1 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status District Office responsible for ensuring excess soil is managed in an is satisfied. environmentally sound manner and according to all regulatory requirements. This includes municipalities, developers and owners of source and receiving sites. As you are aware, the MOE has finalized a guideline entitled, “Excess Soil Management – A Guide for Best Management Practices”.
These best practices are intended to complement existing approvals under provincial legislation and municipal bylaws.
Municipalities and Conservation Authorities are encouraged to consider the concepts set out in the guide when issuing permits or licenses or establishing soil management by-laws or policies, and to make use of them as appropriate. Soil conservation and management should be integrated into all aspects of the planning and development processes.
MOE, Provincial Approvals: Table E-1 (page ES-4) and Table 1- We note that the majority of comments relate to The ministry Environmental 2 (page 1-12) state that Environmental Compliance potential permitting triggers related to the EPA and is satisfied. Approvals Approval (ECA) under the Environmental Protection Act OWRA. Branch (EAB)- (EPA) and Sewage Works Approval under the Ontario Waste Water The co-proponents acknowledge that an ECA Water Resources Act (OWRA) from the MOE is required under the EPA will address any sewage works for the project. Whereas it is true that MOE approval is approval required under the OWRA. The permitting required for sewage works, as defined in the OWRA, the requirements associated with the ECA will be approval under section 20.2 of Part II.1 of the EPA is the addressed during detailed design of the proposed sewage works approval under the OWRA. There is only undertaking, at which time the co-proponents will one MOE approval for sewage works required by confirm with the MOE which components of the design require sewage works approval. This step legislation and this includes any stormwater management in the process will take place after the EA has been works. Also applies to pages 6-51, 10-52, 10-53 and approved by the Minister of the Environment.
- 2 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Appendix G (all discharges).
Sediment Control: It is expected that the proposed sediment trap to be constructed south of the CN Rail Bridge (page ES-19) will require an MOE ECA for sewage works and possibly waste works. Other water quality control facilities (Table E-5) required during construction of the project will need an MOE ECA.
Dewatering: It is expected that significant dewatering activities during construction of the works (Table E-5) will require an MOE ECA for sewage works.
Created Wetlands: It is expected that any wetlands (Table E-6) created/constructed as part of the naturalization work will require an MOE ECA for sewage works.
Stormwater: Run-off from the development areas surrounding the proposed naturalized Don River will be treated and discharged, as much as possible, away from the naturalized areas, i.e. to the Keating Channel, the Ship Channel and the Inner Harbour (page 6-40). It is expected that the design details for stormwater run-off from these areas will be properly defined and explained in a stormwater management report to accompany a sewage ECA application for any proposed stormwater drainage and management works.
Operation and Maintenance (page 6-45): All MOE ECAs for sewage works should have Terms and Conditions identified for the proper operation and maintenance of the
- 3 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status proposed sewage works as part of the Approval.
Contaminated Soils (page 6-48): All MOE ECAs for waste should have Terms and Conditions identified for the proper identification, handling and disposal of any contaminated soils from the construction of the project.
Monitoring and Reporting (page 8-3): All MOE ECAs for sewage works should have Terms and Conditions identified for the proper monitoring and reporting on the operation and maintenance of the proposed sewage works as part of the Approval.
General Observations:
The Addendum appears to identify and address the environmental impacts and issues related to wastewater for the proposed project.
One cannot but applaud the effort of everyone involved in the very worthwhile project. The documentation is complete and easy to understand. Well done!
MOE, EAB -Air It is noted that the only portion of the EA which details Comment noted. Refer to proponent’s response Comment and Noise noise impacts during the operational phase of the project, below to MOE’s February 8, 2011 comments. noted. April 14, 2014 the Preliminary Noise Assessment Technical Memorandum (Appendix P of this EA), was dated February 4, 2011, and has already been commented upon by this office in February 2011.
The noise references in the rest of the EA which may reflect updated planning deal with construction noise, which is not subject to MOE approval. This office will not
- 4 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status be commenting on the noise aspects of the March 2014 version of the EA.
MOE, EAB- Air Based on our review of the EA and additional noise work The noise report was included as an Appendix P The ministry and Noise done by SENES Consultants Ltd. dated February 4, and referenced in the sections of the EA report is satisfied February 8, 2011, we submit the following comments: identified in this comment. The effects documented that the 2011 in Section 7.3.6 and Table 7-11 regarding amended The primary issue was related to the assessment of noise “Nuisance effects on the planned surrounding EA impacts on future development from the proposed communities” indicate that operation of the assesses dredging activities which would be upstream from the hydrocyclone may result in noise exceedances (45 the noise current Keating Channel activities and the proposed days of the year) should it be located in the Ship impacts. operation of sediment management systems located to Channel. Relocation to the Keating Channel has the south. been included as one of the mitigation measures.
The additional noise report work concluded that (given Section 7.3.6 and Table 7-11 includes effects and The ministry the assumptions used in the modelling) there would be up mitigation measures and referenced the noise is satisfied. to an 18 db noise excess over MOE guidelines at some report as an Appendix P. future receptors when the sediment dewatering equipment was located at the Ship Channel as shown in EA Section 6.1.2.2 and Figure 6-16. When modelling the effect of relocating the equipment to the Keating Channel, MOE noise compliance at the nearest points of reception was attained. The proponent will update the noise assessment The ministry In light of this, it is recommended that the proponent shall work related to the sediment management facilities is satisfied update the noise assessment work related to the during detailed design once dewatering technology but sediment management facilities for the conveyance pipe has been chosen. This study will confirm the noise recommend during the detailed design to confirm the noise impact impact and associated mitigation as may be s a from the final design and associated mitigation as may be required. The noise assessment will be provided to condition of required. The noise assessment should be provided to the MOE for review prior to construction of this approval. the MOE for review prior to construction of this portion of portion of the facility. the facility. Commitment for updating noise assessment included into Table 8-2 of the EA.
- 5 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status
Ministry of No further comments provided as they were satisfied that Comment noted. Commitment in Table 8-2 The ministry Tourism, the proponent had addressed their comments on the draft addressed previous comment on draft EA as noted is satisfied. Culture & Sport EA. February 7, 2014 comments on the draft EA in Chapter 10 of the EA, Table 10-32, page 10-81. (MTCS) applicable.
Federal Agencies Transport The federal EA process that was ongoing for many years Comment noted. Comment Canada and lead by the CEA Agency was terminated when CEAA noted. 2012 came into effect. Under CEAA 2012 there was no longer a requirement to complete a federal EA for the proposed Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands project (hereafter the ‘project’). I want to take this opportunity to confirm what you already know which is that a Transport Canada Navigation Protection Act approval (formerly NWPA) is required for certain project components. While this federal approval is required, what you may or may not know, is that a federal environmental review of the project under CEAA 2012 Section 67 is not required because the project does not involve federal lands (as confirmed and exemplified in Figure 3-15 of the provincial EA, which shows property ownership in the Project Study Area).
Could you please take me off your mail and email circulation lists since the CEAA 2012 is no longer applicable to the project.
Please deal directly with the navigation protection unit when design details are better known about the promontory and other navigable waterway works, and for any questions you may have about the new NPA and application process. They can be contacted at:
Navigation Protection Program
- 6 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status [email protected] 1-519-383-1863 Local Agencies Toronto Transit Acknowledged that they would provide comments but Comment noted. Comment Commission none were provided Noted.
- 7 -
Table 2. Public Comment Summary Table
Proposal: Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment (EA) Proponents: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Waterfront Toronto, and the City of Toronto
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status First Gulf The subject site is identified in Phase 2 (f) of the Based on the content of your letter and following our The ministry Don Valley Conceptual Design of the Preferred Alternative of the meeting with you on May 2, 2014, we understand that is satisfied. Limited Environmental Assessment (EA) to construct a flood First Gulf is in general support of the EA. A copy of the (21 Don protection landform to remove the subject lands from meeting summary has been provided as an attachment Roadway) the Floodplain of the Don River. Section 6.6.2.8 of the to this letter. Amended Environmental Assessment Report (the Report) indicates that in the event that the site at 21 It is also our understanding that First Gulf’s preferred Don Roadway undergoes redevelopment, a valley wall flood protection solution for this site would incorporate feature (VWF) could be constructed in lieu of a flood the VWF rather than the “flood protection landform”. protection landform. We confirm that the existing industrial buildings will be demolished and replaced with The three co-proponents for the EA confirm that new multi-story Class AAA office buildings and other amending procedures have been incorporated into the commercial uses. Our preferred flood protection EA that will allow us to establish a valley wall feature alternative is the construction of a VWF in accordance on this site, instead of the specified flood protection with the specifications in Section 6.1.1 rather than a landform, at the time of and consistent with any future Flood Protection Landform. Planning Act approvals undertaken for the site.
Give that the Report identifies the option of the TRCA noted during our meeting on May 2, 2014 that construction of a VWF for 21 Don Roadway in the event First Gulf’s intended construction build-out schedule of of redevelopment, we trust there will be no need for a 5-10 years seems to align with the intended future amendment to the EA to accommodate this. construction schedule for Phases 1 and 2 of the Don Further, we wish to engage the Toronto and Region Mouth Naturalization and Port Land Flood Protection Conservation Authority (TRCA) and all other regulatory Project (Project). Given that key elements of Phases 1 agencies to discuss the timing of flood protection and 2 are required to be in place prior to changing the measures and any possible technical scenarios grades on First Gulf’s site, these synergies in whereby the VWF may be constructed ahead of other anticipated construction schedule are beneficial for works in Phase 1 and 2. both projects. Further discussions should be held with TRCA staff to explore which, if any components of the Phase 2 flood protection works can proceed in
- 1 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status conjunction with or following the raising of grades on First Gulf’s site, early in First Gulf’s planning process. Any such scenarios would need to be tested by TRCA’s Delft model at First Gulf’s expense.
Don The Council fully supports the preferred alternative – The co-proponents appreciate the Council's support for The ministry Watershed 4WS amended – and offers the following detailed the preferred alternative as outlined in the amended is satisfied. Regeneratio comments for the Minister’s consideration. EA. n (Council) Parks The co-proponents appreciate your support for the The ministry During the Port Lands Acceleration Initiative, the preferred alternative and encourages the Council to is satisfied. Council, as well as other community groups, expressed continue with their involvement throughout the design concern about the loss of parkland (from 4WS – 14.4 planning initiatives that will follow pertaining to the ha. to 4WS amended – 10.7 ha.) for a population of +/- specific features and uses for this proposed 25000 future residents. This was partly due to the need recreational area. to retain the dock walls on Cousins and Polson’s Quays and the loss of the proposed promontories at these locations. But the remainder appeared totally passive and not programmable. The final EA has provided 12 contiguous hectares above the top of bank which can accommodate both active and passive recreation which the Council can endorse.
Phasing The co-proponents agree with this recommendation The ministry Construction of the river (Reaches 3 and 4) is not and efforts will be undertaken by the co-proponents to is satisfied. scheduled until Phase 3. The new river, with wetlands, seek the funding necessary to accelerate the forested areas and parkland is the most effective implementation of Phase 3 for the EA. catalyst to change the image of the Port Lands and to attract new investment. It is the most important signal that the city is committed to changing an abandoned and derelict remnant to an attractive, vibrant and healthy new waterfront community. The Council is not questioning the work in Phase 2 (Spillway, new Ship Channel wetland, Don Roadway berm etc.), but would like to encourage a search for (naming) sponsors, fund raising projects or other funding mechanisms which
- 2 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status would allow the river construction to begin earlier.
Sediment / Debris Management The co-proponents have explored multiple options and The ministry Two alternative sites are proposed for a hydrocyclone – locations for dewatering sediment dredged from the is satisfied. one in the debris management area north of Lakeshore Don River. Both locations identified in the EA provide Blvd (Figure 6-15 Option A) and the other in the technical challenges and costs that will need to be southern tip of the Greenway or barge in the Channel explored in more detail, including the development of a (Figure 6-16 Option B). A hydrocyclone is a large, business plan. In addition, given the status of heavy piece of machinery with noise and combustion concurrent planning initiatives involving the Gardiner emission levels that would prohibit enjoyment of the Expressway and the overall Port Lands Master Plan, it green space and be heard by residents 45 days out of is prudent to identify options for dewatering locations in the year. Option B requires increased costs for a slurry the EA to maximize our flexibility for both the design pipe under the Don Roadway and a booster pipe to and operations. transfer slurry from the dredge to the hydrocyclone. A further concern is that it could also effect the success of a newly planted wetland at the channel. The Council objects to the second alternative (Option B) if, based on further studies, it is established that there are greater negative impacts on future residents and/or serious risks to the environment.
New Infrastructure The co-proponents agree with the Council's The ministry It is noted that all bridges and flood protection features recommendation and have incorporated a number of is satisfied. will be built to accommodate the Regulatory Flood plus safety measures in the EA to address the uncertainty an increased freeboard (safety margin) from 0.3 to 0.5. associated with potential future increases in extreme As there is evidence that the rate of climate change is weather events. All new bridge clearances have been increasing, thereby making impact projections less designed to pass Regulatory flood flow events (which certain, it is recommended that this safety margin be is a Hurricane Hazel sized precipitation event centered flexible and responsive to the most current scientific over the entire Don Watershed), plus an additional data. When in doubt - increase the safety margin rather 50cm of vertical freeboard. The 10m horizontal than risk huge expenditures to deal with damage or development setbacks also provide the opportunity to failure. raise the grades of the confining valleys in the future if it is deemed necessary to provide additional flood conveyance. Offsetting the potential increase in magnitude of future extreme precipitation events is that climate change projections currently suggest that
- 3 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Great Lakes water levels will generally experience some lowering although lake controls at the mouth of Lake Ontario may minimize this to an extent.
Stormwater The Lower Don Lands Master Plan Class EA is the The ministry The Chapter on the Preferred Alternative indicates that planning document that addresses the components of is satisfied. both clean runoff (ex. roofs) and contaminated runoff the stormwater treatment train associated with the (ex. roads) will be treated before being discharged into adjacent Lower Don Lands. However, the EA does the Keating Channel, Ship Channel or the Inner establish important guiding principles for the Class EA Harbour (Page 6-40). The effluent may be treated at an as the receiving body for stormwater runoff from the existing ballasted flocculation facility (BFF) at adjacent lands. The constructed natural areas within Lakeshore Blvd or a new BFF on Polson or Cousins the EA area are designed first and foremost to provide Quay. habitat. To identify that the function of the constructed natural areas is to provide stormwater treatment would The Council questions why there is no mention of the result in these natural areas being classified as more economical and sustainable components of the treatment wetlands and would not be deemed habitat. “treatment train” system, already approved by the city As such, it is important that stormwater reaching the and being implemented in new development as well as natural areas in the EA have been treated sufficiently retrofits. The clean soil and raising of the elevation by to ensure that these areas remain natural habitat. In 1.5 to 2 meters that is generally required as a condition addition, issues of a treatment approach that for development in the Port Lands would seem entertained infiltration into the soils within the natural adequate for on-site infiltration, (wherever all areas of the Project is risky given the amount of contaminants have been removed and the soil is not underlying contaminated soils and the floating capped), and should be a basic requirement. If a BFF is contaminants on the groundwater table. While green needed it should be located on Lakeshore Blvd. rather spaces will be remediated, areas that are simply than the Quays which are gathering points of the Park capped could be a problem as increased infiltration system and key locations for a “catalyst” use to set the rates could create a movement of contaminants to the tone for the new development. naturalized areas.
Resident South of Ship Channel: Geography Professor Erikson of The study area for the EA is limited to those lands that The ministry Boston University said “there are no sharp lines of are required to divert flood waters from the Don River is satisfied. division in nature” therefore the minimum width 300 into the receiving waters of Lake Ontario. As such, the metres wide (Biship R.) Flood Spillway Wildlife Corridor southernmost limits of the study area are limited to the must be continued South of the Ship Channel – linkage north side of the Ship Channel. Planning of to Leslie Street Spit development lands and green spaces south of the Ship
- 4 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Channel is currently underway as part of the Port Lands Framework and Land Use Plan led by the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto
The Don Narrows and Linkage North-South: The river is Appendix L of the Amended EA explores the The ministry forming pool-riffle sequences within the Don Narrows. opportunities available for habitat enhancements within is satisfied. Every effort to enhance this process; and enlighten the Don Narrows. A number of recommendations and policy and projects will encourage a habitat, vegetated approaches are outlined in the Appendix that could be linkage in this crucial connection, Oak Ridges Moraine explored to enhance these features by various parties. to the Lake. (or this spinal cord is severed and in the These activities can be implemented independently of works of David Crombie “IT’s all connected” won’t come the EA. to be)
Regarding Table 8.2 “DMNP EA Commitments: The 10 metre setback from the top of valley is TRCA’s The ministry Commitments Affecting Other Projects” : standard setback for development applications in our is satisfied. Page 8.9 (Section 6.1.1.2), the setback from top of jurisdiction. The top of valley in the EA is established valley slope to be 30 metres horizontally. Thirty feet (or by delineating the required valley configuration that is 10 metres) is not enough for water and ecological able to convey storm flows in excess of the Regulatory regime functions Storm Event (a storm with similar intensity as • E.g. water infiltration (discharge below) Hurricane Hazel centred over the Don Watershed). In • E.g. vital role of flora and fauna – native species many areas, this setback is even further than the 10 plants and roots and leaves; also, metre setback to allow for active park land uses in the • E.g. the role of insects, birds, mammals, fish in design. Given the multi-channelled design of the the web of life is in this riverine ecosystem. preferred alternative, and the extensive natural habitat areas established for the EA, we believe sufficient space has been provided to accommodate a wide suite of natural ecological functions for the mouth of the Don.
Species The existing conditions chapter of the EA provides a The ministry Identify existing species (a baseline) and target species detailed accounting of the species currently occupying is satisfied. the project and expanded study area. The design of the EA has been developed using other reference sites along the north shore of Lake Ontario to establish the appropriate mix and orientation of habitat types to maximize ecological function. The EA does not seek
- 5 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status to target specific species, rather, it proposes to create the appropriate types of habitat such that a wide range of desired flora and fauna communities can make use of the constructed physical habitats. TRCA will track species colonization and usage within the Project area over time and assess whether the ecological functions are operating within an acceptable range of parameters for a suite of desired native species.
Chapter 9 E.A. Amendment Process: A firm line must TRCA, as one of the proponents on the EA will The ministry be drawn regarding any amendment that results in an continue to be actively involved throughout the various is satisfied. environmental condition where the ecological or planning initiatives underway for the Port Lands area to hydraulic function of the naturalized Don Mouth would ensure ongoing compatibility with the outcomes of the be negatively affected. The Provincial regulatory EA. function or role of the TRCA under the Conservation Authorities Act and other relevant enabling legislation municipal, Provincial, or Federal must be the rule. No project or scheme must be allowed to encroach on the Project design or land/water area.
Chapter 9, Table 9-2 Minor or Major Project TRCA as a proponent of the EA and as the provincial The ministry Modifications: A brand new Watchdog Committee / flood plain regulator for the jurisdiction will have a legal is satisfied. Roundtable must be setup to monitor and proposals, be commitment to ensure that parallel planning processes they a Minor or Major modification. remain compatible with the goal and objectives of the EA. As such, TRCA will be the lead agency involved with any minor/major amendment processes to the EA.
- 6 -
Table 3. Aboriginal Communities Comment Summary Table
Proposal: Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment (EA) Proponent: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Waterfront Toronto, the City of Toronto
Aboriginal Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Communities
Curve Lake Curve Lake First Nation applauds the Toronto and Comment noted. Comment First Nation Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in their noted. efforts to return the Don Mouth and Port Lands to its natural, appealing state.
Mississaugas Sediment Management from the Keating Channel Since the creation of the Keating Channel in the early The of Scugog 1900s, dredging has been necessary to maintain ministry is Island First My first question is regarding sediments and their operational depths of the channel. In the mid-1970s, satisfied. Nation disposal. As a result of a long term degradation of dredging was halted following direction from the Internal (comments on the Don Mouth area, and noted contaminants, how the draft EA can we determine what is eventually done with Joint Commission's prohibition on open water disposal received during these contaminated dredged sediments. They are of sediment in the Great Lakes. Within a few years, 2014 EA “currently disposed of in containment cells at the sediment accumulation had filled up much of the review period Leslie Street Spit” but where do they go from there if Keating Channel, resulting in a significant increase in by proponent) ever they do? flood risk to the area. To address this risk, TRCA retained Acres Consulting and initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) called the Keating Channel EA which was approved in 1984. Essentially this EA identified the need for reinitiating dredging activities within the Keating Channel, and evaluated a number of techniques for dredging, transportation and storage of sediments. The preferred alternative identified the use of a clamshell dredge and barge system to deposit the materials in the three containment
- 1 -
Aboriginal Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Communities
cells at Leslie Street Spit. Containment cells 1 and 2 have since reached capacity and there remains approximately 40 years capacity in cell 3, based on current dredging rates (~30,000 to 40,000 cubic metres per year).
Regarding your specific question on sediment quality, sediment tests are undertaken routinely as part of the dredging operations and the results indicate that the sediment accumulated in the Keating Channel is quite clean and would typically meet parks quality guidelines. Sediments deposited in the containment cells at Leslie Street Spit will remain in those cells permanently. Several years ago, a clean fill cap was placed over the sediments in cell 1 and a new wetland was established in the cell. Similar efforts are underway for cell 2. As a condition of approval for cell 1, TRCA has been monitoring the quality of sediment and water in the cell to ensure that there are no issues. Results have demonstrated that the wetland in cell 1 is functioning very well and as anticipated.
The EA does not replace the approvals of the Keating Channel EA, rather it identifies that based on the new location where dredging would occur (north of Lake Shore Boulevard), a new technique for dredging would be required. As such, the EA recommends changing the technology to a hydraulic dredge system. In so doing, a dewatering system will be required to separate
- 2 -
Aboriginal Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Communities
the sediments from the water incorporated in the hydraulic dredge operations. The dewatering process provides us with the potential to separate the sediment by grain size, thus allowing us to reuse the sand and gravel portion of the dredged materials for landscaping, habitat or other purposes within the Port Lands or elsewhere. The finer silt portion of the dredged materials would continue to be deposited in the Leslie Street Spit, thereby increasing the life expectancy of the final containment cell significantly.
Wild Rice Establishment and Harvesting Your letter indicates significant interest in the The establishment of wild rice in the mouth of the Don and ministry is On page ES-27 of the draft EA, under Table 5 for opportunities to harvest this rice. The use of wild satisfied. DMNP Mitigation Measures, Aboriginal Interest, rice in the design for the EA was also suggested early Traditional Land and Resource Use it mentions the in the EA process by the Mississaugas of the New potential to “incorporate heritage aspects, such as Credit First Nation. The EA contemplates establishing using specific vegetation communities (e.g. wild some wild rice in the proposed wetland located in the rice)” which is an area I take great interest in on spillway connected to the Ship Channel. This wetland behalf of the Mississauga Nation, being a harvester remains separated from frequent flows from the Don of this important food staple in the modern sense. River and is fed directly by water from Lake Ontario Along with Mr. Jeff Beaver of Alderville First Nation through the Ship Channel. The constraint regarding the both he and I harvest wild rice (manoomin) annually proposal for harvesting wild rice in this area pertains to at specific locations throughout Kawartha Lakes, the relatively small area that the wetland will have once using the historic un-commercial method, the completed, which may not be conducive for active method our people are famous for. On this front, I harvesting. However, I have been in discussions with would like to propose that we enter discussions for Margie Kenedy (Manager, Archaeological Services, the purpose of furthering this possibility of TRCA) and Ralph Toninger (Manager, Habitat reintroducing such a vegetation community as wild Restoration Services, TRCA) and both expressed
- 3 -
Aboriginal Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Communities
rice. strong interest in exploring opportunities to establish wild rice communities in the containment cell wetlands Wild rice is an important staple and an important at Leslie Street Spit. This offers significant and valuable resource not only for the Mississauga opportunities to coordinate with yourselves and the people, but also for the migratory birds and fish. But Mississaugas of the New Credit for wild rice harvesting it needs to be managed, which is where our people at a larger scale in a quicker timeframe than waiting for have the expertise. Any it should be harvested! the implementation of the EA. We would of course be This simple but important aspect of the project also pleased to discuss this in more detail with you. has in my view important educational value where it could be used to enlighten the diverse population of Toronto on an historic food source that our people once harvested in the region. It is a country food containing iron, magnesium, phosphorus, vitamin B3, B6, B8, zinc, fiber, and protein and regular consumption strengthens our immune system so I cannot say enough about its positive properties, especially in a time when good food and nutrition is under attack by cheaper processed and chemically based “food” products!
Chippewas of As a member of the Williams Treaties First Nations, Comment noted. Comment RAMA First Rama First Nation acknowledges receipt of your noted. Nation letter of March 3, 2014, which was received on March 3, 2014 via courier.
A copy of your letter has been forwarded to Karry Sandy-Mckenzie, Barrister & Solicitor, Coordinator for Williams Treaties First Nations for further review and response directly to you. Please direct all future
- 4 -
Aboriginal Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Communities
correspondence and inquiries, with a copy to Rama First Nation, to Ms. Sandy-Mckenzie at 8 Creswick Court, Barrie, ON L4M 2J7 or her email address at [email protected] Her telephone number is (705)-792-5087.
We appreciate your taking the time to share this important information with us.
- 5 -
APPENDIX C
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Appendix C Supplemental Information Key Components of the Proposed Undertaking
Flood Protection Features • River valley formation for new river valley and river mouth in the Lower Don Lands area of the Port Lands including stabilization works • Keating Channel weirs to control water flow (upstream weir & side flow weir) • East bank flood protection landform (CN Rail bridge to Keating rail yard- approximately 80 metres at one end tapering down by 5 metres). Landform is proposed to be located north of Keating Channel and extends up to CN rail bridge on east side of the river • East bank Valley Wall Feature south of Lakeshore Boulevard to Ship Channel • Modification of grades (at Eastern Avenue and railway for Kingston Subdivision grade separation) • Elevation of grades for lands surrounding river valley by 1.5 or 2 metres • Reconstruction of existing Hydro One facilities (bridge, underground cables, retrofitting overhead towers)
Naturalization • Includes creation of a total approximately 30 hectares of new habitat associated with the valley lands including lands which are within the 10 metres setback from the new top of bank for the valley • Lake connected wetlands • Wetland levee systems to distinguish between habitats, the low flow river channel and lake connected wetlands; levees to control water flow in and out from the Ship Channel, to control flooding; and, to manage fish passage into wetlands areas • Creation of additional land for open space north and south of the new river mouth which will involve lake filling • Creation of fish habitat features such as harbour edge treatments, underwater reefs, offshore boulder placement, log tangles and variations in shoreline topography
Sediment, Debris and Ice Management Operations • Lands required for sediment management including a hydraulic conveyance area and debris area located north of the Keating Channel • Creation of sediment trap and excavation of sediment from sediment trap • Debris brooms across river valley • Barge dock for hydrologic dredge • Hydrocyclone north of Lakeshore in debris management area or near Ship Channel • Service Road • Underground sediment conveyance pipe to be located on the east side of river to extend from CN rail bridge southerly to the Ship Channel or extend only as far as the Keating Channel where in either case a barge will dewater sediment then store it on a scow water vehicle which will be towed to Tommy Thomson Park for final disposal of soils from dredging or otherwise reused • Creation of an ice management area south of the Keating Channel
Keating Channel • Channel will also be narrowed with stone revetments to stabilize channel and provide additional fish and terrestrial habitats • Channel will continue to be used to manage flood conveyance when needed via use of weirs to the north and east of the channel • Removal of Keating Channel bridge and abutments • Dredging in Keating Channel will continue as approved under the Keating Channel EA until extended portions of the river south of the Channel are implemented and connected to the upper reaches of the Lower Don River
Soil Management • Excavation of soils for river valley, river mouth and wetlands • Management of soils in accordance with Waterfront Toronto’s Soils Management Master Plan for Designated Waterfront Areas and Groundwater Management Master Plan for Designated Waterfront Areas • Management of contaminated soils and groundwater in accordance with municipal and provincial standards, guidelines and regulations • It is anticipated that any contaminated soils will be treated at a nearby soil recycling facility managed by a private company for treatment of soils within in the Port Lands. Other soils which can not be treated will be shipped off site to a licensed facility. Treated soils deemed appropriate for reuse may be used for lake filling or re-grading.
MAKING A SUBMISSION?
A five-week public review period ending August 29 2014 will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:
Agatha Garcia-Wright, Director Environmental Approvals Branch Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5 Fax: (416) 314-8452
Re: Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment Attention: Solange Desautels, Special Project Officer
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in all submissions become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released if requested.